Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Aug 2009 19:35 UTC
BeOS & Derivatives The Haiku alpha release has always been a bit elusive. The project has been near the alpha release for a while now, but a number of difficult data-destructive bugs kept it at bay. After an informal coding sprint, the alpha is now just a decision away.
Thread beginning with comment 377461
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by dvzt
by renox on Thu 6th Aug 2009 11:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by dvzt"
Member since:

And frankly, we (= the F/OSS community) *need* alternatives to Linux and the usual *nix centric stuff that runs on top of it

As (for example) Android show, the Linux kernel isn't restricted to running the usual *nix stuff ( MacOS X show the same thing also: the same kernel can be use to make very different OS).

We need alternatives to classic *nix stuff, this I agree (BeOS had many advantage over classical *nix stuff), but alternatives to the Linux kernel?
Not so much, especially since it's possible to maintain the alternatives as a fork of the 'vanilla' kernel if the main developers don't want to integrate a change.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by dvzt
by setec_astronomy on Thu 6th Aug 2009 13:01 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by dvzt"
setec_astronomy Member since:

The ability to run pretty much any user-land you can think of on top of a typical *nix style kernel is a great feature. It has (among other features) guaranteed the relevance of this class of operating systems for the past decades and it will ensure that Linux, the *BSDs or Solaris won't fall into irrelevance any time soon. And, just to make this clear, I have absolutely nothing against the "typical" *nix stuff. In fact, if I can choose, I vastly prefer a classical *nix style setup with X11 and a graphical environment like KDE or XFCE over most alternatives.

So, given my preference for *nix Kernels and setups, why do I think that having strong alternatives to Linux is important?

- There are a lot of potential F/OSS operating system developers out there that prefer to work on tightly integrated, modern, non-Unix-alike kernels. I guess the whole F/OSS ecosystem could do with more developers regardless of their preference for operating systems.

- Having alternatives to the tested and tried UNIX kernel model for studying security and performance related topics doesn't hurt either.

- In related news, having a larger number of different (and for that matter: incompatible) operating system kernels with a significant installation base hopefully *should* result in a better and more coordinated approach to reverse engineer, document or lobby for hardware specifications. Yeah, I know, given the past experiences with common reverse engineering efforts of - for example - the OpenBSD and the Linux wireless team, this is not the most likely outcome, but even a geek should be allowed to dream. Given the current everybody-reinvents-square-wheels-on-its-own practice, I fail to see any potential harm in one more player participating in the process of writing drivers for alternative operating systems.

- Non-Kernel related, but nevertheless: Having an larger developer- and userbase who push F/OSS alternatives in order to provide the "desktop experience" regular users kind of expect nowadays should be beneficial for all F/OSS operating systems alike. More importantly, a larger number of target operating systems with a visible installation base means that the projects behind our toolkits, toolchains and common auxiliary libraries have to place a stronger emphasis on being cross-platform and open.

Reply Parent Score: 2